Range paper says Senate should seat … Burris?

A Mesabi Daily News (Virginia, Minn.) editorial today suggests that despite all the controversy, leaders should seat the new U.S. Senator from the upper Midwest.

No, not Al Franken. The editorial is silent on that one. But rather, the MDN says the Senate should seat Roland Burris, the appointee of disgraced and embattled Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Ha! Was NOT expecting that.

Best. Irony. Ever.


  1. I don’t see how they don’t seat Burris. They can’t exclude a legal appointment by an elected governor because they think the governor is corrupt and should resign.

    Likewise the Republicans need to give up the idea that they can exclude Franken until all court challenges are settled.

    Excluding either one will set terrible precedents. Anyone can challenge an election in court. And there are plenty of corruption allegations that you can hang your hat on if you don’t want to seat someone.

  2. “Politically stupid”, are definitely words I would use to describe an active governor who tries to sell a Senate seat.

    I would however use the words, “really ******’ stupid”, to describe the Mesabi Daily News after reading this article.

    After seeing many of that paper’s editorials; I wonder if they don’t take asinine positions on subjects just to create controversy and spike circulation.

    If so that’s not a bad business move. More than likely though they are just closet fascists.

  3. And you are a liberal fascist, s’tweasel.

    What did Burris do wrong? Why is Burris unfit to represent Il in the US Senate?

    As for the tainted MN election, why did some people get two votes?
    Why does the left support some people getting two votes? What happened to one person, one vote?

    Our election system is broken!

    Minnesota (especially da Range) is more and more like Chicago when it comes to politics, corruption, and fraud.

  4. Do you know the true meaning of the word fascist, K-Rod? Actually, Slikweasel may have a good theory there.

    I love the situational ethics here, K-Rod. Burris is not the problem, rather the governor who appointed him. But I conceded that legally Burris is probably entitled to that seat. The Illinois legislature needed to act faster.

    But on this recount business I must take exception. You are repeating talking points that have been disproven again and again. There is no evidence of “double counted” ballots. Additional votes were counted in many precincts, but in no cases did the number of votes exceed the number of voters in those precincts. Optical scans are very accurate, but do contain a measurable margin of scan errors that only hand counts can correct. Every statewide election sees adjustments like this, the only difference is that most elections aren’t this close. On behalf of the DFL, I apologize that our party is the one with the most older and new voters who tend to make the most ballot mistakes, which is why recounts often favor DFLers. I wish that weren’t true.

    You may not like the outcome. I don’t blame you, I’d feel the same way in the reverse. And there are matters of absentee ballots that need to be resolved. But this was a fair recount that followed the law in an extraordinarily transparent way.

    Wherever there is darkness, there is fraud. Wherever there is light, fraud is exposed. Cast light upon the transgressions you describe and the truth shall be known. I think this has been pretty darn open, though.

  5. (A second Anonymous here, back at Anon #1). Anonymous #1 makes a very good argument that if someone is appointed legally, they should be seated, even though the Governor is accused (not convicted) of some nasty things.

    The problem, however, is that – as with the Franken election – Burris’ appointment needs to be signed off by both the Governor and the Secretary of State of Illinois. In Burris’ case, the SOS has not signed off on the appointment.

    I agree that you need to treat both Franken and Burris seatings the same (in terms of the legality of their election/appointment), but I say that seating either one would be the incorrect move (since neither has the proper set of signatures at this time).

    The next argument is if the Senate has the right to determine its own membership. That’s a snarly legal area that opens up another big can of worms.

  6. Good arguments, Anon #2. I’m actually in favor of just sticking with the processes and avoid making precedents in duress. Burris is clearly an old school politician. They should have just wheeled and dealed and avoided the embarrassment. And in Minnesota, another week and a final court review won’t hurt anyone. But I don’t know what’s going to change in either situation.

  7. Liberal Fascism, look it up fer yerself, ab.

    BTW, “pretty darn” isn’t good enough.
    A run-off would settle the matter; the re-count only shows the system is broken.

    You are delusional if you think people can read strangers minds.

    “disproven” where, AB?
    Was it DKos? DU? MN blew?

    My wife heard of one instance of a person being driven to vote to two different polls… homeless… prolly mentally challenged… downtown St. Paul homeless shelter.

  8. Of fer pete’s sake, I was just being Minnesotan. Pretty darn good equals MOST EXCELLENT. Sheesh.

    Meantime, the votes still don’t exceed the voters, so there is no case there. Doesn’t matter where you read it, that’s just how it is. This indeed disproves, or certainly discredits the double voting theory that is being dropped — verbatim (maybe by you?) all over the web today.

    My wife heard that Coleman hired robots to use mind control on the people of Pipestone County. Again, I defy you to prove me wrong.

  9. I asked your wife if she heard you say that about Coleman.

    Meet my wife in downtown St. Paul where she volunteers tomorrow between 9am and noon and she can tell you what she knows.

  10. More than 25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote.

  11. State Supreme Court Justice G. Barry Anderson, has acknowledged that “very likely there was a double counting.”

  12. “Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.” -Plato

    “I asked your wife if she heard you say that about Coleman.

    Meet my wife in downtown St. Paul where she volunteers tomorrow between 9am and noon and she can tell you what she knows.” K-Fed

  13. It appears S’tweasel had nothing to say but just had to comment anyway. Thanks for playing the fool.

    Still waiting for Aaron to disprove the State Supreme Court Justice.

    My Karma just ran over your Dogma

  14. Actually I was saying you were a fool. It is self-evident why you didn’t understand that…

  15. OK, one more time, but that’s it because the only people reading this are me, you and Slikweasel. Oh yes, and your anonymous alter ego who says the same things as you within minutes of you.

    In context, what the justice was talking about was examples where you could probably deduce that there were some errors made, but that you couldn’t identify the right way to correct it without throwing out valid votes. It’s the same as saying that probably someone, somewhere wasn’t allowed to vote because of a misunderstanding about voter registration or some other error. That probably happened somewhere, but that doesn’t mean I get to guess how those folks would have voted and add it to the totals.

    For an election this big, the fact that the error margin is very, very small is a credit to the process. This is much better than punch ballots and presumably better that electronic voting without a paper trail. The only bad thing is that the election was so close that the margin of error matters. There is no retroactive correction of this, thus, as there is no provision for a runoff, the only thing you can do is be as accurate as possible and call it good. I believed until very recently that Coleman would win. I wasn’t happy about it, but you go with the cleanest count you can get. If you want perfection you’re in the wrong business.

    Meantime, I’m not going to wade into the mud with you anymore. You have a habit of consuming the entire discussion with red herrings and straw men. Jeez, fella, we’re two shchmoes on the internet during the day. Let’s just let things go after a while.

    You’re welcome to respond, but I’m turning off the computer now and probably won’t respond to anything that involves bold face platitudes.

  16. Hey Sh’tweasel, you were the fool that had nothing to say; you proved you are a fool because you had to say something. Fact!

    Aaron, are you calling the State Supreme Court Justice a red herring or a straw man?

    Game. Set. Match.

  17. Well, then there was Karl Rove, a man of the moral high ground, on TV last evening (FOX, what else?) stating as fact all the accusations alluded to above. Sheesh. And the so called interviewer ah-hi-ing Rove’s every statement. Making Minnesota look foolish.

    BTW, Mark Richie said that the optical scanners were more accurate than people counting. The difference in the vote totals is mostly due to not excluding some ballots in the first place.

    And don’t forget, there were lawyers from both sides present in every recount place. Good one: go to university for 8 years to be able to watch people count marks on a piece of paper.

    But I have wondered about people registering at the polling places. My son had recently moved, renting a room, hence no paper work showing any residency, but he could use his cell phone bill as proof of residency. Does that really make any sense? OTOH, should young voters who don’t own or rent long term be excluded?

  18. Yes, there were lawyers from both sides present and the Coleman campaign was repeatly told if you disagree, take it to court.

    PS, I didn’t watch Fox 9 last night; are you saying the State Supreme Court Justice or Ritchie is making Minnesota look foolish?

Speak Your Mind


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.